Santa Clara University Scholar Commons Women's and Gender Studies College of Arts & Sciences 2008 Autoethnography as Constructionist Project Laura L. Ellingson Santa Clara University, [email protected] Carolyn Ellis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/gender Part of the Communication Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Recommended Citation Ellingson, L. L., & Ellis, C. (2008). Autoethnography as constructionist project. In J. A. Holstein, & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 445-465). New York: Guilford. Copyright © 2008 Guilford Press. Reprinted with permission of The uiG lford Press. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Women's and Gender Studies by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ~ THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London Autoethnography as Constructionist __ Project Laura L. Ellingson Carolyn Ellis everal years ago, we published an essay guished by virtue of what they are not." No­ in which we claimed that qualitative re­ where is this evidenced more strongly than Ssearch can be productively thought in the quantitative-qualitative divide. Even of as existing along a continuum. Ai-tistic in qualitative work itself polarities mark the interpretivists anchor one end, whereas sci­ differences between interpretivists and real­ entific positivists hold down the other. In be­ ists (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & tween is a vast and varied middle ground Lofland, 2001; Bochner & Ellis, 1999). Re­ wherein most qualitative researchers locate cently autoethnographers have begun to dis­ themselves (Ellis & Ellingson, 2000). We tinguish themselves from one another by constructed a nuanced range of possibilities separating evocative from analytic autoeth­ to describe what many others have socially nography. Analytic autoethnographers fo­ constructed as dichotomies (mutually exclu­ cus on developing theoretical explanations sive, paired opposites), such as art- science, of broader social phenomena, whereas evo­ hard-soft, and qualitative-quantitative (see cative autoethnographers focus on narrative Potter, 1995). Dichotomous thinking re­ presentations that open up conversations mains the default mode of the academy. and evoke emotional responses (Hunt & "Language, and thus meaning, depends on a Junco, 2006). system of differences," explains Gergen When Carolyn invited me (Laura) to coau­ (1994, p. 9). "These differences have been thor this chapter, I accepted with enthusi­ cast in terms of binaries... All are distin- asm, excited to be working with her again. 445 446 11> STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES Perusing the Handbook prospectus, I chuck­ covered in my many years of directing led at the irony of the two of us jointly con­ dissertations that the main roadblock for structing a story about the intersections students is that they try to do too much. between autoethnography and social con­ Then they encounter difficulty doing any structionism once again. Those familiar with one thing deeply or thoroughly enough. Carolyn's methodological novel on auto­ Laura was among the very best students I ethnography (Ellis, 2004) might recognize had ever mentored, and I wanted her to suc­ me as the witty, weak-bladdered woman in ceed. Laura persevered, and I guess I Carolyn's qualitative methods seminar. shouldn't have been surprised, given that Whereas Carolyn cheerfully explores my she was as astute at traditional analysis as she bodily weakness to add levity to her story, was talented as a narrative writer, that she her discussion of my dissertation only hints pulled off an excellent dissertation that in­ at the lengthy, intense saga of my negotia­ corporated multiple perspectives and meth­ tion with her and my committee over the ods. In light of our experience, I thought she role autoethnography would play in my would be the perfect coauthor for this chap­ ethnographic construction of an interdisci­ ter. plinary geriatric oncology team. Thankfully, In this chapter, we explore autoethnog­ the story had a happy ending; together we raphy as a social constructionist project. We resisted the art-science dichotomy and em­ want to resist the tendency to dichotomize braced crystallization, a postmodern form of and instead explore how autoethnography methodological tJ.iangulation that utilizes makes connections between seemingly polar multiple methods of analysis and multiple opposites. Though we see it as a sign of prog­ genres of representation (Richardson, ress that authors desire to tease out differ­ 2000). I combined narrative ethnography, ences in autoethnographic projects, we ar­ grounded theory analysis, autoethnography, gue that concentrating on dichotomies is and feminist analyses into a single disser­ counterproductive, given that autoethnog­ tation prqject, now revised into a book raphy by definition operates as a bridge, (Ellingson, 2005a). In this chapter, Carolyn connecting autobiography and ethnography and I continue that conversation, develop­ in order to study the intersection of self and ing our conception of autoethnography as a others, self and culture. constructionist project. After further detailing in this chapter the When I (Carolyn) asked Laura to coau­ limits of dichotomous thinking, we sketch thor this chapter with me, I hesitated at first the meanings and goals of autoethnography. as I thought about how insistent she had We then discuss social constructionist con­ been in her dissertation on including every­ cepts pertinent to autoethnography by de­ thing but "the kitchen sink." She wanted to constructing various methodological dichot­ engage in crystallization and approach the omies. oncology team she studied from a variety of perspectives. Her goal was to illuminate the socially constructed world of the team while The Limits simultaneously revealing the constructed na­ of Dichotomous Thinking ture of her multiple accounts of the team. Yes, perhaps I would have preferred at the I (Laura) often feel! am channeling Carolyn time that Laura do it "my" way. Don't we all when I introduce the continuum of qualita­ want to reproduce ourselves? But I also tive methods to my undergraduate qualita­ pride myself on helping students to find tive students, so tied to our personal rela­ their particular and unique voices, especially tionship is my knowledge of and passion for if they are different from mine. I was leery of qualitative methods. I recall with fondness Laura's proposed project because I've dis- Carolyn's chart of qualitative research with Autoethnography @ 447 the squiggly, broken line down the middle mal channels, such as academic journals, between the art and science sides. "Qualita­ and through informal, interpersonal tive as art and qualitative as science," she interaction with others [ Gergen, 1994]. giys adamantly, "are endpoints of a contin­ Unfortunately, we are so schooled in lium. You have to decide where you want to some ways of thinking that we no longer ibcate yourselves in terms of your identity notice how limiting those mental patterns ind in every research project you do. That can be. There ai·e three ways in which di­ location will determine your goals, the pro­ chotomies limit our thinking. You'll want tedures you use, and the claims you make" to take notes on this and ask me questions (Ellis, 2004, pp. 25-31, 359-363). if you don't understand, since this isn't in \ I address the limits of dichotomous think­ the reading, and it will be on the exam." irig early in my qualitative methods course, tight after introducing social construction­ This last comment brings them to rapt at- ism as the epistemology that underlies the tention, and they poise their pens above iliethodological continuum. "The central their notebooks as I explain. ~remise of social constructionism," I tell stu­ dents, "is that meaning is not inherent. The "First, dichotomies present as opposites i::entral concerns of constructionist inquiry what are actually interdependent. Socially ire to study what people 'know' and how constructed opposites actually depend they create, apply, contest, and act upon upon each other for existence; without these ideas" (Harris, 2006, p. 225). women there would be no men, only peo­ Ci My undergraduate students sit with their ple; without hard, there would be no soft, ~esks arranged in a circle, faces not yet only a single texture. drooping with late-term fatigue but more "Second, dichotomies limit the possibil­ than a few evidencing the mild resentment ities to two and only two, negating t11e $om of taking required courses. I discuss near-infinite possibilities present between fhe politics of the field of qualitative re­ any two poles. Thus we can resist the limi­ iearch and how hotly contested many issues tations of femininity and masculinity as ~-e within the field, referencing their read­ mutually exclusive opposites and imagine frig ofJames Potter (1995). My students look them instead as poles between which at me with naked disbelief when I add with a there are many degrees of androgyny, ~iriile, "And some of us actually care so blended identities, and possible perfor­ (li:eply and passionately about this stuff that mances of sex, gender, and sexuality. W,e have ongoing debates and dialogues and "Finally, when we limit possibilities to fven get mad at each other sometimes!" The only two, one will inevitably be valued ftudents shake their heads, mystified as to over the other. It is not possible to view li_ow anyone could care so much about such the world in terms of equal opposites; one ~h:opic. side is always already privileged." 'fhThen I tell them that making sense of the World through dichotomous thinking is un­ As I finish the $tatement I notice I am lean­ ptoductive. "Dichotomies are pervasive in ing forward, gesturing enthusiastically, my M[estern thinking," I add, warming to my voice effortlessly projecting throughout the J9pic, my excitement growing. The circle of room. One of my students, a lovely young }fudents remains quite unexcited, but I con­ woman who works in my department office, tinue.